RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 99 100 101 102 103 [104] 105 106 107 108 109 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:27   

At least DaveTard used naturalistic explanations.  I agree that he's an idiot for thinking that he just disproved natural selection.  But, at least his ideas are testable.  You have to give him credit for trying.  He11, I think more people should do science in the kitchen.  I wonder if he realizes that he represents the entire laboratory research program of the Intelligent Design movement.

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:34   

Is Dave sure those weren't MAGIC Chinese mushooms?

They must have been, the way he's hallucinating...

DaveScot, brilliant ID theerist (AND experimentalist) will go down in history for disproving evolution with his magic mushrooms.



-------------

HAHA!

This comment is great.
Quote
#

There is an interesting paper here:

http://www.rae.org/introns.html

“The author concluded that the new knowledge related to introns supports the intelligent design worldview.”

Perhaps more relevant to this blog are papers like:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....bstract

which investigate the loss and gain (conservation) of introns (information)in fungi.

Experiments involving conservation of intron information could be a rich source of empirical evidence supporting and furthering theory’s like Dr. Demski’s Conservation of Information.

IDers sucessfully take pot-shots at targets like RM+NS. Offering real evidence of advancement in the very promising new fields of research would be a more decisive indictment of neo-darwinism

Comment by Collin DuCrâne — May 19, 2006 @ 2:01 pm


To him, passing on genes is an example of Demski's ludicrous "Law of Conservation of Information."

Man, that's awesome.

even the abstract he links to says:
"Little is known about the patterns of intron gain and loss or the relative contributions of these two processes to gene evolution."

and

"Our data reveal the surprising importance of intron gain."

Cripes...

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:37   

gene regulation is a whole field of evolutionary biology now. Either Davetard didn't know that, or he's learned Dembski's Rule #1: Just say anything. Your creationist followers will believe anything.

   
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,10:56   

The first thing I thought wasn't gene regulation.

Quote
After about 2 weeks I was ready to draw conclusions then move on.

It's probably just a matter of time. 2 weeks is plenty time for peroxide to decompose, especially if there was ANY light around.

Quote
. Just one took off and when it took off it took off like there was no peroxide.

There probably wasn't any significant amount left after 2 weeks just sitting around.

Maybe he had them in the dark, I don't know.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,10:59   

As a relative novice to biology, even I recognize the inherent stupidity evoked in DaveTard's claims. Lamarckism? Maybe it's because I actually subscribe to Nature and Science. Maybe it's because I have a deep desire to know. Maybe it's because I took a few classes.  Maybe it's because DaveTard is simply..well, an idiot.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
steve_h



Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,13:19   

Creationist anti-ID bumper stickers?  
Quote
A student of mine heard second-hand about anti-ID bumper stickers being handed out at a creationism conference. Unfortunately, my student didn’t have any details. Does anyone have any information about this conference or the actual statement on the bumper stickers?
Reassuring to see, that on important matters at least, Dembski is prepared to check out the validity of stuff related to him second or third hand before commiting.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,13:53   

I've got an anti-ID bumper sticker for him.

DEMBSKI SAID IT
I LAUGHED AT IT
THAT SETTLES IT

   
steve_h



Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,14:21   

Quote (beervolcano @ May 19 2006,15:56)
The first thing I thought wasn't gene regulation.

Were you on your boat  at the time you thought this? - heroically peering into a perfectly adequate, though not quite state of the art, marine microscope while struggling with a nasty bout of scurvy?  No, I thought not. Evolution loses.

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,18:25   

Dembski has posted a link to a list of 20 proposed candidates for the title "Fourth Law of Thermodynamics."

I think he's miffed that his "Law of Conservation of Information" didn't make the cut.

It's tough being the "Isaac Newton of information theory" when everyone regards you as more of a Wayne Newton.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,20:54   

that's an insult to Wayne Newton, and i don't even like his music!

@Deadman:

I would also suggest a subscription to TREE, if you are interested in applied evolutionary theory/ecology.

http://www.trends.com/tree/default.htm

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,21:06   

I've noticed that whenever I post a post to UD here, it gets through.  Now, like any good scientist, I'll try an experiment to test this hypothesis...

Quote

DS: I take it you'rw now admitting that this was wrong:
<blockquote>So anyhow, I now have a volvariella colony that <em>mutated</em> beneficially within a matter of weeks in a most Lamarckian way in response to environmental stress. I<blockquote> (emphasis mine)

and that it's just simple gene regulation.  Incidentally, how do you know that the new mushrooms were produced by spores, and not through hyphal growth?

Yep, I'm up for a banning.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,21:22   

Quote (stevestory @ May 19 2006,13:04)
keiths (a hive mind composed of several persons named keith) has an interesting idea...

My name is Legion: for we are many.  Haven't you heard of the NCSE's Project Keith?  It's the evolutionary successor of Project Steve.  All of the Keiths who accept evolution have banded together into a single, powerful Darwinian consciousness which can vaporize Cobb County textbook stickers and copies of Of Pandas and People by the power of sheer thought...              
Quote
...to mirror Dembski's site and allow unfettered comments. I do not think it would work though, because wouldn't it violate copyright laws? Maybe it wouldn't, I don't know.

If Wes's existing blog mirror doesn't violate copyright laws, I can't see why the new one would.  The same information is being replicated in both cases.  However, the UD folks might be able to make a case that we were denying them revenue by decreasing the click-through traffic on their blogads.

To avoid the issue altogether you could do the following:

1. For each new UD post, automatically create a post on our blog which links to the UD post.
2. Folks could start at our blog and follow the link to UD to read the post, the blogads, and any comments left by UD loyalists.
3. By simply hitting the back button, they'd be at a page where they could comment on the post free of DaveTard's censorship.

This thread (the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread) is great for laughing at the goings-on at Dembski's madhouse, and would continue to play that role.  But wouldn't it also be nice to be able to go to a single place where you could see a UD post, read the comments pro and con, and contribute to the discussion without censorship, the way Dembski's blog should have worked in the first place (and the way practically every other blog does)?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,07:02   

Ooh, that DaveScot makes me so mad...

But he still may not have banned me from this thread yet, so let's try again:
Quote
<blockquote>Where did I say anything about any fruiting bodies? These are mycelial cultures. I’m admitting nothing. Descent with modification took place.</blockquote>

If the cultures are mycelial, then they are <em>the same individual</em>.  Hence, no descent.

I was asking about whether they were produced from spores because I <em>do</em> know something about the life cycle of fungi:
I spent 5 and a half years doing research in mycology, and my PhD is in fungal plant pathology.  The point with mushrooms is that if they are only hyphal, then they are the same indidivual: two mushrooms produced by one hyphal culture are parts of the same individual in the same way that my left arm is a part of the same individual as my right arm is.  Would you claim that your liver cells (say) have "inherited" their function when they were produced?  That's not evolution: it's development.  

Epigenetic inheritance isn't an issue, because inheritance isn't an issue.

Bob
P.S. I was hoping to be banned with a bit more of a flourish than "Thanks for playing.".  I'm really disappointed. :-(


Yes, folks, deep in my heart I know this is all foolish, and I should just give up on DaveScot now.

I'm giving up on you now.  You're outta here -ds

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,07:39   

Quote
You’re SO banned for that! :razz: Just kidding. The reason should be obvious to any sane person. JAD was trashing Bill and I with gay abandon in any forum that will let him post (except ISCID Brainstorms which is the only respectable forum that will still have him and wonder of wonders ISCID happens to be founded and directed by Bill Dembski hisself). JAD initially got bent out of shape because I banned him here for foul language. He thought Bill ordered it but Bill did no such thing. Bill never mentioned JAD to me one way or another. It was my call. Anyhow, after a few weeks of JAD sounding off and complaining that he was banned at the blog that had his papers prominently displayed I thought “the heck with this, I’m not going to do any favors for a cur that bites the hand that feeds it” and I removed his papers. Davison inevitably becomes an embarrassment and liability to anyone that associates with him. That’s why Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, the Discovery Institute, Wesley Elsberry, in short just about everyone, doesn’t pay any attention to him. I have no class compared to those guys (well maybe not Elsberry he’s pretty classless) so I can’t resist rattling his chain from time to time. -ds

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,07:49   

Quote (Bob O'H @ May 20 2006,07:02)
Ooh, that DaveScot makes me so mad...

But he still may not have banned me from this thread yet, so let's try again:
   
Quote
<blockquote>Where did I say anything about any fruiting bodies? These are mycelial cultures. I’m admitting nothing. Descent with modification took place.</blockquote>

If the cultures are mycelial, then they are <em>the same individual</em>.  Hence, no descent.

I was asking about whether they were produced from spores because I <em>do</em> know something about the life cycle of fungi:
I spent 5 and a half years doing research in mycology, and my PhD is in fungal plant pathology.  The point with mushrooms is that if they are only hyphal, then they are the same indidivual: two mushrooms produced by one hyphal culture are parts of the same individual in the same way that my left arm is a part of the same individual as my right arm is.  Would you claim that your liver cells (say) have "inherited" their function when they were produced?  That's not evolution: it's development.  

Epigenetic inheritance isn't an issue, because inheritance isn't an issue.

Bob
P.S. I was hoping to be banned with a bit more of a flourish than "Thanks for playing.".  I'm really disappointed. :-(


Yes, folks, deep in my heart I know this is all foolish, and I should just give up on DaveScot now.

I'm giving up on you now.  You're outta here -ds

Bob

#

Hark! What’s that sound I hear from the peanut gallery? I do believe it’s the sound of crickets chirping! :cool:

You’re not banned Bob, in case you thought that. Feel free to keep on playing if you think you have a move left.

Comment by DaveScot — May 20, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

So post his latest comment, then, Davey.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,08:09   

Dave is challenging someone to respond, and then not allowing the response through? That's about what I expect from him.

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,08:56   

Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2006,08:09)
Dave is challenging someone to respond, and then not allowing the response through? That's about what I expect from him.

Er, no. My mistake. (Unless something morphed between views!;)

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,09:07   

Quote
You should ask for a refund on your PhD, Bob. Mycelia are colonies of discrete individual organisms. Any individual cell in the colony can and will produce a new colony. They are composed of individual cells that reproduce by budding, also known as vegetative growth. They may or may not all be clones. If they are all clones they are what’s called a pure strain or monospore culture. I’m working with a pure strain. All the individuals are descended from a single spore. Pure strains are used in commercial mushroom production because they exhibit consistent, predictable performance (senescence issues aside). But here’s what you seem to be missing, Bob. Descent with modification doesn’t stop just because I’m working with a pure strain that is reproducing asexually. Individual cells can and do continue to descend with modification in mycelial colonies. That’s how evolution works, Bob. Daughters aren’t always perfect copies of their mothers. Colonies can also be multi-spore or dikaryotic where the individuals in the colony are descended from more than one spore and this is typical in nature where reproduction from season to season is accomplished by the haphazard germination of multiple sexually produced spores. In multispore colonies it’s a crapshoot as to fruiting capacity, optimal substrates, etc. which is why in commercial production we use monospore cultures as long as we can maintain the the pure culture without it becoming senescent. I can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you stop making faces and spitting it out. -ds


This seems to be a variation on Davey's " A man-made lake is not a reservoir" argument.

Note the clever use of mycelia, which (being plural) are more than one organism, whereas the point at issue is that a mycelium is one organism. Watch out, Bob, he's street-wise and arguing to win, not to discover the truth.

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:25   

Quote (steve_h @ May 19 2006,19:21)
 
Quote (beervolcano @ May 19 2006,15:56)
The first thing I thought wasn't gene regulation.

Were you on your boat  at the time you thought this? - heroically peering into a perfectly adequate, though not quite state of the art, marine microscope while struggling with a nasty bout of scurvy?  No, I thought not. Evolution loses.

Sorry, I don't own a boat.

I'm not a biologist, so my gut doesn't shoot out biology answers to certain problems. I am a chemist and I know how reactive most peroxides can be. Light will decompose hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen. It might decompose into hydroxyl radicals depending on whether there were any metal ions around.  If it was mixed in with organics, it wouldn't take 2 weeks to be gone, even at room temp. If there was any air exchange, and if it wasn't bound up in a gel, it might have easily evaporated.

I don't know what the conditions were, but hydrogen peroxide doesn't like to just hang around for weeks without a damned good reason.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:34   

Quote (keiths @ May 19 2006,23:25)
Dembski has posted a link to a list of 20 proposed candidates for the title "Fourth Law of Thermodynamics."

I think he's miffed that his "Law of Conservation of Information" didn't make the cut.

It's tough being the "Isaac Newton of information theory" when everyone regards you as more of a Wayne Newton.

My favorite on the list is:

#15 - The universe tends towards love. [love = exergonic reactions]



:)

That's the one I voted for at least.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,13:59   

Quote
My favorite on the list is:

#15 - The universe tends towards love. [love = exergonic reactions]


does that explain Woodstock?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,15:33   

Quote
#

I’m not sure about this particular bumper sticker, but I do know a little about creationist disliking ID advocates. A local pastor in my area think that ID is somehow a “watered down” compromise used to please both Christians and Evolutionists. Many, especially in the fundamentalists community and more particularly in the circles who know nothing of science, think that we should literally use the first few chapters of Genesis to teach science to students in the public school system, and to do anything otherwise is to somehow “kick God out of the classroom” and consequently “God will abandon a country that does that”.

For a less boligerant summary of the creationist attitude towards ID, go here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp

Comment by diggnate — May 19, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
Nothing special about his post. I just wanted to make fun of his spelling of 'belligerent'.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,16:57   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,18:59)
Quote
My favorite on the list is:

#15 - The universe tends towards love. [love = exergonic reactions]


does that explain Woodstock?

Yeah, I think that was the title of a really embarrassing song Eric Burdon recorded around 1969.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,22:11   

Quote
Hark! What’s that sound I hear from the peanut gallery? I do believe it’s the sound of crickets chirping! :cool:

You’re not banned Bob, in case you thought that. Feel free to keep on playing if you think you have a move left.

Comment by DaveScot — May 20, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

So post his latest comment, then, Davey.


I have to sleep at some point!  In case DaveScot hasn't worked this out, Finland is in a different time zone to him.

I even missed Finland's big night, which is the real news today (I live in Helsinki, so this is of local importance.  As well as being the biggest laugh since Judge Jones III passed down his ruling).

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,23:35   

Congratulations, Finland.

England voted 12 points! France 8 points! Incroyable. Puts all those years of "nulls points" in the shade.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,03:29   

Quote
May 20, 2006
The Information Revolution

Ironically, ancient wisdom, much of it presumably discredited by modern science, is making a comeback and vindicating itself.

Consider that living matter was once thought to be fundamentally different than non-living matter. This idea was presumably discredited with the discovery of the chemical synthesis of urea (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5905):

   
Quote
Urea is of major historical significance. It was the first organic chemical compound ever synthesized. The German chemist Friedrich Wöhler in 1828 attempted to make ammonium cyanate from silver cyanide and ammonium chloride and, in the process, accidentally made urea. Wöhler wrote his mentor Jöns Berzelius, “I must tell you that I can make urea without the use of kidneys, either man or dog. Ammonium cyanate is urea.”

   This pioneering experiment disproved the theory of vitalism, the concept that organic chemicals could only be modified chemically, but that living plants or animals were needed to produce them.

Yes, some chemicals produced by living systems can be synthesized and modified with purely deterministic chemical processes. But then an unexpected discovery was made.

Functional biological proteins are chemicals, but they cannot be synthesized or modified with purely deterministic chemical processes, and they cannot perform their biologically relevant functions except within a carefully controlled and regulated environment. Information, and an information processing system are required to produce them and coordinate their activities.

It turns out that the vitalists were right in a sense. Living matter is fundamentally different than non-living matter. Living matter requires information.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — GilDodgen @ 9:51 pm


Quote
#2

what shouldn’t surprise people here is that vitalism has never really been discredited, and an idealistic/vitalistic tradition has been alive and well for centuries, especially in the medical field. Homeopathic medicine, for example, works on the premise that all substances, even non-living ones, contain a “non-material, spirit-like” essence. This essential core or blueprint is the organizing information for that substance. Living entities have a far more complex system, but are also governed by an intelligence called ‘vital force’. Interestingly, homeopathic medicine endures the same relentless antagonism from materialists as does ID.

Comment by tinabrewer — May 21, 2006 @ 12:16 am

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:05   

Hmmmm. How long will DM tolerate one of his flunkies favorably comparing Intelligent Design to homeopathy?  :p

Poor DM. For all his efforts, he gets nothing but idiots on UD, and what's really sad is, he knows it.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:18   

hehehehehehe I love it. And I love how the Passion of the Young Earth Creationists simmers just below the surface, always ready to boil over and corrode the facade of scienciness.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,06:44   

Of course, this is the obvious consequence of banning anyone who shows signs of independent thought.

There should be a big sign when you open UD: YOUR IQ MUST BE THIS LOW TO ENTER!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,08:09   

Yeah
they kind of want to have it both ways don't they.

If G...er the Producer/Prehistoric Genetic Engineer wanted to zap primitive replicating life into existence why bother creating a non living world devoid of life in the first place?
Heck maybe he was autistic and just got the joke, 3.5 or so billions years later, that a world without life was not going to have them (other gods one presumes) laughing in the aisles. That's the half a Dave denial, to accept an old earth is an anathema for that obvious reason. The big g... HAS to do it all at once otherwise his is redundant


Then on the other hand if rocks and water are living things an old earth is feasible, since those six days were just billion year days, give or take a day or two and the magic of a very, very slow learner for a god is perfectly explainable, that's the CarolC scriptural revisionism school of creation.
If life and rocks are the same thing any magical thought is real, including healing crystals, the restorative powers of old Elvis memorabilia, and psychic surgery.

Let the fun continue

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 99 100 101 102 103 [104] 105 106 107 108 109 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]